Manchester United 17/18: Reigning Europa League Champions, EFL Cup and Community Shield Holders!!!

You misunderstand a couple of things. One it isn't just about City. And there are very different business models in play. Unlike say the Glazers, who are in it to make money pure and simple, with plain old greed the primary motivation, the Sheik's bottom line has nothing to do with profit and loss as such. It is an investment alright, but owning City is not simply a hobby for an obscenely wealthy individual. Instead it as part of a political strategy by a major political player in the region to enhance the visibility and prestige of the region and his country in particular. City are bankrolled to this end, with profits magiced up by cooking the books in order to meet the requirements of FPP.

Owning City is very much a demonstration of soft power which is where 'despotic' comes in, because it is being done to ensure said despotism continues uninterrupted. Your full-blooded endorsement of them (especially as a supporter of a bitter rival) is in its own small way suggestive of the efficacy of the strategy. Understandably, the owners of PSG are following the same model and for the same reasons but rather more brazenly. And yet you still ask about where the 'corrupt potential' is in all this? It is already corrupt and the potential for further corruption is almost infinite.
If you still refuse to see where this might be heading, then why not take us all step by step through the successful bid by Qutar to host the World Cup in 2022?

Click to expand...

I merely support City, and as with fans of any other club, this applies no matter who comes along and buys the majority shareholding. It is beyond our control. One day Sheikh Mansour will be gone, but City will be stronger for his involvement. And there is no evidence of books being cooked. If any exists, where is it? As pointed out above, City are more scrutinised by the football authorities than almost any other club, and have passed all the stringent tests so far set. So no corruption with regard to City. Plenty of corruption among those doing the scrutinising, though, as we have seen with the scandals at UEFA and FIFA, as well as a de-facto conflict of interest issue by having somebody so closely associated with one club (United) in leading positions in all football's governing bodies. Might as well add to that the self-elected G14 cartel dedicated to maintaining football's status quo and ensuring that the European elite goes unchallenged forever.

It used to be claimed that 'City are merely a rich man's plaything.' City fans responded from the start by pointing out the wider strategy. 'He will be gone as soon as he gets bored,' the kindergarden critics would say, bless their little cotton socks... Now the very same people have moved the goalposts. Toys are being thrown out of prams on an unprecedented scale.

To ensure the survival of a small regional power is way beyond the influence of a football club on the other side of the world even with Pep in charge. City are part of a larger strategy, but only a small part. Involvement in PL football can help project a more positive image of that regional power for sure, but its visibility also brings about wider scrutiny of the regime-a regime which incidentally has completely normal business relations with the western world, for good or ill. Those who feign concern about the regime in Abu Dhabi after showing complete indifference towards it prior to City's successful transformation would presumably wish to isolate it and allow it to act unimpeded by any scutiny? It is particularly curious that those of a progressive political bias choose to join in with this unprecedented concern when knowing full well that Abu Dhabi is nowhere near the worst regime in the world in historical terms, and despite an awareness that its crimes and failings hardly register when compared to those of our own governments. As I said above, when was the last time Abu Dhabi sent an army halfway round the world to illegally invade and lay waste to a nation? Where is Abu Dhabi's Vietnam or even Ireland? Its Hiroshima and Nagasaki or its Gulag? There are despots and then there are despots... But of course, such previously unmentioned concern about what goes on in Abu Dhabi arises simply because their favourite football clubs are being brushed aside by City. If the Sheikh's takeover had been botched, no interest in the affairs of Abu Dhabi would be in evidence from such people.

For what it's worth, the UAE comes in at 21st in the UN's 'World Happiness Report'; Britain three places above at 18th... Coming from the area of Manchester where City are based, I can also say that I have not previously seen such a local transformation as that which has taken place since the Sheikh bought the club out, and it is an area which had long been considered beyond any kind of revival. I seem to remember reading about Fred Done, the bookmaker and United fan, saying something similar.

Not really sure about the relevance of Qatar's World Cup bid when Qatar has nothing to do with City and is locked in bitter conflict with the regime in which City's owners serve. Nor why I should be willing or able to take anybody through that bid step by step.

I merely support City, and as with fans of any other club, this applies no matter who comes along and buys the majority shareholding. It is beyond our control.

It used to be claimed that 'City are merely a rich man's plaything.' City fans responded from the start by pointing out the wider strategy. 'He will be gone as soon as he gets bored,' they would say, bless their little cotton socks... Now the very same people have moved the goalposts.

There is no evidence of books being cooked. If so where is it? As pointed out above, City are more scrutinised by the football authorities than almost any other club, and have passed all the stringent tests. So no corruption with regard to City.

To ensure the survival of a small regional power is way beyond the power of a football club on the other side of the world even with Pep in charge. City are part of a larger strategy, but only a small part. Involvement in PL football can help project a more positive image of that regional power for sure, but its visibility also brings about wider scrutiny of the regime-a regime which incidentally has completely normal business relations with the western world, for good or ill. Those who feign concern about the regime in Abu Dhabi after showing complete indifference towards it prior to City's successful transformation would presumably wish to isolate it and allow it to act unimpeded by any scutiny? It is particularly curious that those of a progressive political bias choose to join in with this unprecedented concern when knowing full well that Abu Dhabi is nowhere near the worst regime in the world in historical terms, and despite an awareness that its crimes and failings hardly register when compared to those of our own governments. As I said above, when was the last time Abu Dhabi sent an army halfway round the world to illegally invade and lay waste to a nation? Where is Abu Dhabi's Vietnam or even Ireland? Its Hiroshima and Nagasaki or its Gulag? There are despots and then there are despots... But of course, such previously unmentioned concern about what goes on in Abu Dhabi arises simply because their favourite football clubs are being brushed aside by City. For what it's worth, the UAE comes in at 21st in the UN's 'World Happiness Report'; Britain three places above at 18th...

Coming from the area of Manchester where City are based, I can also say that I have not previously seen such a local transformation as what has taken place since the Sheikh bought the club out, and it is an area which had long been considered beyond any kind of revival.

Not really sure about the relevance of Qatar's World Cup bid when Qatar has nothing to do with City and is locked in bitter conflict with the regime in which City's owners serve. Nor why I should be willing or able to take anybody through that bid step by step.

Except that Yeman is hardly on the other side of the world from Abu Dhabi. But if it turns out to be their Vietnam, so be it. It hardly makes them worse than our own governments but, as is to be expected, the same in that they defend the interests of certain elites. Nobody is saying they're innocent of any crimes, but pointing out the duplicity of most of those previously uninterested followers of certain football clubs who have suddenly found the conscience to impotently decry them.

Furthermore, City's owners are not in sole charge of Abu Dhabi. If they suddenly tried to go against the grain of that nation's history and perceived priorities they'd probably wind up in exile or dead, as with with many rulers across the world throughout history.

Except that Yeman is hardly on the other side of the world from Abu Dhabi. But if it turns out to be their Vietnam, so be it. It hardly makes them worse than our own governments but, as is to be expected, the same in that they defend the interests of certain elites. Nobody is saying they're innocent of any crimes, but pointing out the duplicity of most of those previously uninterested followers of certain football clubs who have suddenly found the conscience to impotently decry them.

Furthermore, City's owners are not in sole charge of Abu Dhabi. If they suddenly tried to go against the grain of that nation's history and perceived priorities they'd probably wind up in exile or dead, as with with many rulers across the world throughout history.

Click to expand...

Well why ask 'where is Abu Dhabi's Vietnam or even Ireland?' if you already think that they are absolved because of the actions of our own government? It might be that City's owners are hardly 'worse than our own government' as you say but no doubt they will continue to be scrutinized so best get used to it.
Not surprising that some Utd supporters should take an interest in who's funding one of their biggest rivals either, I'm sure that if Utd were being bankrolled by say, Donald Trump or the Sultan of Brunei then you might be curious about their new owner. And no I don't think it makes anyone a hypocrite to question such owners, maybe some were critical of such governments previously, who knows?? I probably wouldn't post about the Burmese government in this thread for example not because I condone their actions but because this thread is about Manchester United and by implication their rivals.
City have been bankrolled by Abu Dhabi to a massive degree and they now have a wonderful team and outstanding manager, that's just a fact. Man United are still the largest club in the world in terms of generating money however and all their acquisitons are self-funded, they haven't had a 'sugar daddy' from Russia or Abu Dhabi chuck money at them, quite the opposite as the Glazers have taken 100s of millions out of the club over the years. Not crying a river about it however that's just the way it goes and United have won the League and been Champions of Europe under/despite the Glazers. Will Utd still be able to take on City in future? Maybe, I remember thinking that Blackburn and after them Chelsea would dominate the league for ever because of their generous benefactors but it doesn't always work out that way. Mind you we did have Fergie then...so Utd will carry on and Mourinho will talk about needing more money but he does like a moan as we all know, he might even scarper to PSG at some point...I must admit to having enjoyed watching City this season, some incredible football, Guardiola has done very well with his unlimited resources

For what it's worth, the UAE comes in at 21st in the UN's 'World Happiness Report'; Britain three places above at 18th... Coming from the area of Manchester where City are based, I can also say that I have not previously seen such a local transformation as that which has taken place since the Sheikh bought the club out, and it is an area which had long been considered beyond any kind of revival. I seem to remember reading about Fred Done, the bookmaker and United fan, saying something similar.

Not really sure about the relevance of Qatar's World Cup bid when Qatar has nothing to do with City and is locked in bitter conflict with the regime in which City's owners serve. Nor why I should be willing or able to take anybody through that bid step by step.

Click to expand...

That the Qutar bid was corrupt is taken as read. They bought the rights to host the World Cup. So if they had an interest, and money is no object whose to say they couldn't buy the actual tournament itself? Of course that might be pretty difficult with national team involvement. Less so with clubs sides for obvious reasons. PSG's named owner is a key player within Qutar. This key player is now following the City model if a little crassly.
If the City model is so above board why would he be interested in following it?

The point is that if money corrupts, then unlimited amounts of it risks unlimited corruption. Qutar 22 already proves that point. Ultimately it would be far healthier for English football if the owners of City as a 'plaything' or alternatively were just ordinarily greedy bastards like the Glazers, who invest enough in Utd merely to keep the project afloat. But they are not. Down the road they may either sink football or sink City. So enjoy it while you can.

Well why ask 'where is Abu Dhabi's Vietnam or even Ireland?' if you already think that they are absolved because of the actions of our own government? It might be that City's owners are hardly 'worse than our own government' as you say but no doubt they will continue to be scrutinized so best get used to it.
Not surprising that some Utd supporters should take an interest in who's funding one of their biggest rivals either, I'm sure that if Utd were being bankrolled by say, Donald Trump or the Sultan of Brunei then you might be curious about their new owner. And no I don't think it makes anyone a hypocrite to question such owners, maybe some were critical of such governments previously, who knows?? I probably wouldn't post about the Burmese government in this thread for example not because I condone their actions but because this thread is about Manchester United and by implication their rivals.
City have been bankrolled by Abu Dhabi to a massive degree and they now have a wonderful team and outstanding manager, that's just a fact. Man United are still the largest club in the world in terms of generating money however and all their acquisitons are self-funded, they haven't had a 'sugar daddy' from Russia or Abu Dhabi chuck money at them, quite the opposite as the Glazers have taken 100s of millions out of the club over the years. Not crying a river about it however that's just the way it goes and United have won the League and been Champions of Europe under/despite the Glazers. Will Utd still be able to take on City in future? Maybe, I remember thinking that Blackburn and after them Chelsea would dominate the league for ever because of their generous benefactors but it doesn't always work out that way. Mind you we did have Fergie then...so Utd will carry on and Mourinho will talk about needing more money but he does like a moan as we all know, he might even scarper to PSG at some point...I must admit to having enjoyed watching City this season, some incredible football, Guardiola has done very well with his unlimited resources

Click to expand...

I don't think they're absolved of anything, as I implied in the post you quote. Neither have I said anybody shouldn't be scrutinised-as I also made clear. What I did say was that hardly any of those currently feigning concern about the 'human rights' record of Abu Dhabi and so on showed the slightest bit of interest in what what went on there until the Sheikh bought out City and put their noses out of joint by creating a genuine competitor to their own clubs.

And has also already been said, City have also been 'self-funded' for some time now, as was the aim of the initial investment. This has clearly upset United and the rest of the English and European cartel, who, with the compliance of the TV companies and the pliable football authorities who are interested only in the viewing figures commanded by the cartel clubs and getting on the gravy train, thought they had it all sewn up for good by skewing all major competitions in their favour. This was bound up with the strange idea that past success means that nobody else should ever be able to present a challenge, and the myth of 'self-generated' money (I wish I could get my hands on one of these mysterious cash 'generators'...) Hence the anti-competitive FFP legislaton. It always was going to take a so-called sugar daddy (otherwise known as serious investment) to barge a way into such a closed shop (and if you think that your own club has never had a sugar daddy, then you don't know its history-take a look at what happened when you were on the verge of bankruptcy until a man named James Gibson came along. Like the Sheikh, he was a man with vision and ambition.) Like I've said, it isn't as if it is City, or PSG for that matter, who made it all about the money. And Guardiola hasn't got unlimited resources, as the club is subject to the same FFP legislation as everybody else. And it is United who currently have the most expensive playing squad ever assembled.

Don't really see why some of you complain so much about the Glazers, by the way. It isn't as if those already running the club, and who you revere, weren't more than willing to sell out to them for personal gain, and it isn't as if the success you enjoyed beforehand didn't continue for some time afterwards.

That the Qutar bid was corrupt is taken as read. They bought the rights to host the World Cup. So if they had an interest, and money is no object whose to say they couldn't buy the actual tournament itself? Of course that might be pretty difficult with national team involvement. Less so with clubs sides for obvious reasons. PSG's named owner is a key player within Qutar. This key player is now following the City model if a little crassly.
If the City model is so above board why would he be interested in following it?

The point is that if money corrupts, then unlimited amounts of it risks unlimited corruption. Qutar 22 already proves that point. Ultimately it would be far healthier for English football if the owners of City as a 'plaything' or alternatively were just ordinarily greedy bastards like the Glazers, who invest enough in Utd merely to keep the project afloat. But they are not. Down the road they may either sink football or sink City. So enjoy it while you can.

Click to expand...

I never said the Quatar bid wasn't corrupt, just that it has nothing to do with City, which is what all this is really about. If the rise of City hadn't made it more difficult for the cartel clubs, particularly the English ones, then it wouldn't be another straw to clutch at with regard to City. As with other examples of blatant corruption in the game, it would have passed with barely a mention.

If, as you allege, the key player in PSG is crassly following the City 'model', there's nothing anybody at City can do about it, particularly given the fact that the two Emirates states appear not to be on speaking terms. But I don't know if he really is or isn't, and I suspect that very few others do either.

And as already mentioned, the idea that City constantly have unlimited money thrown at the team is a myth. The club is subject to the same FFP regulations as everybody else. I also like the way that United and the rest of the cartel not having it all their own way equates to the sinking of football. This is what I meant by toys being thrown out of the pram. At the moment, City fans are clearly quaking at the obvious way that the current owners are sinking the club by transforming its infrastructure, helping regenerate an impoverished part of Manchester, bringing in trophies, and building one of the best sides ever seen in the game... And I thought the Glazers were the enemy, draining a great club of everything that it could be proud of? Are they now to be considered the model or something?

I don't think they're absolved of anything, as I implied in the post you quote. Neither have I said anybody shouldn't be scrutinised-as I also made clear. What I did say was that hardly any of those currently feigning concern about the 'human rights' record of Abu Dhabi and so on showed the slightest bit of interest in what what went on there until the Sheikh bought out City and put their noses out of joint by creating a genuine competitor to their own clubs.

And has also already been said, City have also been 'self-funded' for some time now, as was the aim of the initial investment. This has clearly upset United and the rest of the English and European cartel, who, with the compliance of the TV companies and the pliable football authorities who are interested only in the viewing figures commanded by the cartel clubs and getting on the gravy train, thought they had it all sewn up for good by skewing all major competitions in their favour. This was bound up with the strange idea that past success means that nobody else should ever be able to present a challenge, and the myth of 'self-generated' money (I wish I could get my hands on one of these mysterious cash 'generators'...) It always was going to take a so-called sugar daddy (otherwise known as serious investment) to barge a way into such a closed shop (and if you think that your own club has never had a sugar daddy, then you don't know its history-take a look at what happened when you were on the verge of bankruptcy until a man named James Gibson came along. Like the Sheikh, he was a man with vision and ambition.) Like I've said, it isn't as if it is City, or PSG for that matter, who made it all about the money. And Guardiola hasn't got unlimited resources, as the club is subject to the same FFP legislation as everybody else.

Don't really see why some of you complain so much about the Glazers, by the way. It isn't as if those already running the club, and who you revere, weren't more than willing to sell out to them for personal gain, and it isn't as if the success you enjoyed beforehand didn't continue for some time afterwards.

Click to expand...

I think there's been a lot of interest in human rights in the Gulf especially with the World Cup going there, can't blame all that 'feigned concern' on disgruntled Utd fans surely? The Glazers have taken a lot more out of Utd than they've put in by loading the club with millions in debt which is why I don't like them and yes I do know of Mr Gibson, wouldn't have placed him in the billionaire bracket though.

I don't think they're absolved of anything, as I implied in the post you quote. Neither have I said anybody shouldn't be scrutinised-as I also made clear. What I did say was that hardly any of those currently feigning concern about the 'human rights' record of Abu Dhabi and so on showed the slightest bit of interest in what what went on there until the Sheikh bought out City and put their noses out of joint by creating a genuine competitor to their own clubs.

And has also already been said, City have also been 'self-funded' for some time now, as was the aim of the initial investment. This has clearly upset United and the rest of the English and European cartel, who, with the compliance of the TV companies and the pliable football authorities who are interested only in the viewing figures commanded by the cartel clubs and getting on the gravy train, thought they had it all sewn up for good by skewing all major competitions in their favour. This was bound up with the strange idea that past success means that nobody else should ever be able to present a challenge, and the myth of 'self-generated' money (I wish I could get my hands on one of these mysterious cash 'generators'...) Hence the anti-competitive FFP legislaton. It always was going to take a so-called sugar daddy (otherwise known as serious investment) to barge a way into such a closed shop (and if you think that your own club has never had a sugar daddy, then you don't know its history-take a look at what happened when you were on the verge of bankruptcy until a man named James Gibson came along. Like the Sheikh, he was a man with vision and ambition.) Like I've said, it isn't as if it is City, or PSG for that matter, who made it all about the money. And Guardiola hasn't got unlimited resources, as the club is subject to the same FFP legislation as everybody else. And United have the most expensive playing squad ever assembled.

Don't really see why some of you complain so much about the Glazers, by the way. It isn't as if those already running the club, and who you revere, weren't more than willing to sell out to them for personal gain, and it isn't as if the success you enjoyed beforehand didn't continue for some time afterwards.

I think there's been a lot of interest in human rights in the Gulf especially with the World Cup going there, can't blame all that 'feigned concern' on disgruntled Utd fans surely? The Glazers have taken a lot more out of Utd than they've put in by loading the club with millions in debt which is why I don't like them and yes I do know of Mr Gibson, wouldn't have placed him in the billionaire bracket though.

Click to expand...

It didn't take a billionaire when Gibson intervened in United. Was there even such a thing as a billionaire at the time? The point is that he rescued and then bankrolled a failing club and laid the basis of future success (partly with the, maybe foolish in hindsight, co-operation of City.)

As I keep saying, I was completely unaware of all this concern about human rights in the Gulf on the part of the fans of certain clubs (not just United fans) until they realised that their clubs were not guaranteed to have it all their own way anymore. Now they seek to blur the picture further by associating City with the Qatar World Cup bid. It shouldn't work when a moment's googling will tell you otherwise, but I suppose plenty of the straw clutchers will continue to clutch at the straws...

It didn't take a billionaire when Gibson intervened in United. Was there even such a thing as a billionaire at the time? The point is that he rescued and then bankrolled a failing club and laid the basis of future success (partly with the, maybe foolish in hindsight, co-operation of City.)

As I keep saying, I was completely unaware of all this concern about human rights in the Gulf on the part of the fans of certain clubs (not just United fans) until they realised that their clubs were not guaranteed to have it all their own way anymore. Now they seek to blur the picture further by associating City with the Qatar World Cup bid. It shouldn't work when a moment's googling will tell you otherwise, but I suppose plenty of the straw clutchers will continue to clutch at the straws...

Click to expand...

How were these other clubs trying to guarantee to have it their own way? Was it by filling stadiums and winning trophies perhaps? Yes you certainly could hardly accuse City of doing that, well done them on attracting their own Angel of Abu Dhabi instead, much more efficient.

How were these other clubs trying to guarantee to have it their own way? Was it by filling stadiums and winning trophies perhaps? Yes you certainly could hardly accuse City of doing that, well done them on attracting their own Angel of Abu Dhabi instead, much more efficient.

Click to expand...

I've already explained how they were doing it. Why do you think the cartel clubs had no real challengers for so long? They skewed all the major competitions in their favour in the early 1990s, in line with the interests of the TV companies and the fortune-seeking gravy train jumpers in the football governing bodies. Take a look at how many different clubs were top-flight champions prior to the advent of the Premier League for instance.

So City 'attracted' an 'angel'; United 'attracted' the Glazer angels. Newcastle 'attracted' the angel of Sports Direct. Etc etc. Is it anything to do with us, the mere paying customers?

I've already explained how they were doing it. Why do you think the cartel clubs had no real challengers for so long? They skewed all the major competitions in their favour in the early 1990s, in line with the interests of the TV companies and the fortune-seeking gravy train jumpers in the football governing bodies. Take a look at how many different clubs were top-flight champions prior to the advent of the Premier League for instance.

So City 'attracted' an 'angel'; United 'attracted' the Glazer angels. Newcastle 'attracted' the angel of Sports Direct. Etc etc. Is it anything to do with us, the mere paying customers?

Click to expand...

Ashley and the Glazers and Kronke et al moved into football to make money. AB/Qutar etc already have money, endless amounts of it, so they moved into football for other than economic reasons. If money and football isn't the primary aim 'regenerating impoverished parts of Manchester' certainly isn't, so it begs the questions what is?

How were these other clubs trying to guarantee to have it their own way? Was it by filling stadiums and winning trophies perhaps? Yes you certainly could hardly accuse City of doing that, well done them on attracting their own Angel of Abu Dhabi instead, much more efficient.

Click to expand...

tbf it would be hard to accuse City of not filling stadiums , at least their own. They were very well supported even in the old division 2 and 3 when they were related in the 80s

Ashley and the Glazers and Kronke et al moved into football to make money. AB/Qutar etc already have money, endless amounts of it, so they moved into football for other than economic reasons. If money and football isn't the primary aim 'regenerating impoverished parts of Manchester' certainly isn't, so it begs the questions what is?

Click to expand...

Selling shirts in Indonesia?

World domination through the power of tiki taka?

Sergio Aguero is patient zero in the world wide avian flu epidemic that weakens the other world economies enough for them to not buy their oil... no I haven't thought that one through properly.

They want to turn the Etihad into a secret volcano base?

umm... they're a bit bored and they've run out of places to put gold taps?

They just want to annoy you?

Roman Abramovic got a bigger yacht than them and they want to show him proper?

Ashley and the Glazers and Kronke et al moved into football to make money. AB/Qutar etc already have money, endless amounts of it, so they moved into football for other than economic reasons. If money and football isn't the primary aim 'regenerating impoverished parts of Manchester' certainly isn't, so it begs the questions what is?

Click to expand...

So many questions that I doubt you'd be asking if Sheikh Mansour had bought United, or botched the City takeover. But I thought we'd already covered all this.

And it actually doesn't matter when you consider that whatever the primary motivation might be (none of us being entirely sure due to not having access to the innermost thoughts of the Shiekh and his circle), they have actually transformed a football club-best current team and best club infrastructure in the country-and regenerated an impoverished area both through the City campus (to which even certain ex-United players are apparently sending their kids, for the facilties and the accompanying high-standard education), and with the wider partnership with the city council. All of this is, by the way, what they said they wanted to do upon completing the purchase of the club. And it's far from finished.

The primary motivation may well not be football, but, looking at the current City side, can you imagine just how good City would be if it was?

Anyway, as I said above, are the sordid money-grubbing ways of the likes of the Glazers (as they were hitherto considered to be by some United fans) now to be held up as the most suitable model? Or does that honour go to Kroenke or Ashley? Failing that, maybe Stan Flashman or George Reynolds could be wheeled out... (And I thought the whole problem with the Glazers was supposed to be that football wasn't their primary motivation...)

And I think you'll find that the Sheikh and co. do stand to make a substantial profit.

And it actually doesn't matter when you consider that whatever the primary motivation might be (none of us being entirely sure due to not having access to the innermost thoughts of the Shiekh and his circle), they have actually transformed a football club-best current team and best club infrastructure in the country-and regenerated an impoverished area both through the City campus (to which even certain ex-United players are apparently sending their kids, for the facilties and the accompanying high-standard education), and with the wider partnership with the city council. All of this is, by the way, what they said they wanted to do upon completing the purchase of the club.

Click to expand...

"actually it doesn't matter what the primary motivation is..."

So, there's a great big rock you are determined not to look under. Fair enough. Dropping the sanctimonious entreaties while your not doing it would probably be sound advice though.

So, there's a great big rock you are determined not to look under. Fair enough. Dropping the sanctimonious entreaties while your not doing it would probably be sound advice though.

Click to expand...

I don't really know what else I can add, when I thought we'd already more or less established that the purchase of City is part of a wider strategy in the interests of the purchaser.

Although if you quote my post in full, you'd see that what I mean is that the primary motivation doesn't matter in terms of what the purchase has done for the fortunes of the football club, which have been 100% positive.

I don't know about sanctimonious entreaties, but I'd prefer them to innuendo, smear, half-truth, outright lies and pseudo- humanitarian concern, all wrapped up in a kind of passive-aggressive slow motion tantrum. Though it does now seem to be the order of the day on places like Red Cafe, where the prospect of being second best for some time, and the shock of the realisation that they can't always have things their own way, seems to have driven a lot of them over the edge.

Although it doesn't deal with the potential end game post 152 is a reasonable summary of what has gone on up to now.

Click to expand...

The link to an article where the author, unable to quite make City's owner into a Saddam or Gaddaffi figure, tries to insert instead somebody else, who has nothing to do with City and whom City's owner may or may not have any influence over?

Of course apart from City, nobody else in football or, indeed the entire economy of the western world, has any dealings with the Emirates or anywhere else where the regimes may fall short of the very high standards our own countries and their business classes hold to, not to mention the scrupulously clean alliances made across the world... (Would do one of those facepalm emoticon things here if it wasn't so unlike my posting style.)

What exactly is this 'potential end game' you keep obliquely referring to, by the way? World domination? Weapons of mass destruction?

I've already explained how they were doing it. Why do you think the cartel clubs had no real challengers for so long? They skewed all the major competitions in their favour in the early 1990s, in line with the interests of the TV companies and the fortune-seeking gravy train jumpers in the football governing bodies. Take a look at how many different clubs were top-flight champions prior to the advent of the Premier League for instance.

So City 'attracted' an 'angel'; United 'attracted' the Glazer angels. Newcastle 'attracted' the angel of Sports Direct. Etc etc. Is it anything to do with us, the mere paying customers?

What, it is something to do with you that the Glazers were attracted to the club you support? You seem to have more influence in the world than I'd have thought.

Click to expand...

I am of interest to the Glazers as one of the many supporters of the club they 'bought', they are of interest to me as the owners of that club...I don't deny they probably don't discuss me personally that often.

I am of interest to the Glazers as one of the many supporters of the club they 'bought', they are of interest to me as the owners of that club...I don't deny they probably don't discuss me personally that often.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I thought it was clear from my post (maybe it wasn't) that I meant that none of us, as mere paying customers, have any control over who buys the clubs we support.